Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

gallag

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, really.... 27 hulls (really just 23 if you exclude the 'vanguards') does not in anyway equate to a top tier navy.
As I said, even South Korea can field a bigger & more powerful force than that.

I didn't say it was.... see my previous post. I've only ever driven skodas!


Assuming that is what could be devoted to the task.

A strike group cannot devote 50% of the hulls from a navy, not practically.
The US navy for example has about 1/3 of its hulls underway at any given moment.
Of the half-batch of 6 Type-45s, usually only one, sometimes two are available at any given moment.

A future strike group will be likely 1 x QE2, 1 x T45, 1/2 T26, 1 x Astute & 1 x Tide class oiler.

Still find & dandy, but nothing that that US, Russia, France, China cannot best & the likes of Italy can more or less match.


Indeed, the Future Italian navy example I mentioned stacks up thusly:

1 x Aircraft Carrier (Improved Cavour 550 fielding 1 x squadron of F35-B)
1 x LHA (The Garibaldi replacement)
3 x LPD
4 x Air Defence Destroyers
10 x Heavy Frigate/Destroyer (FREMM class)
4 x Light Frigates
6 x Attack Submarines
29 hulls all told..... vs the RN's 23 with only a better carrier giving the RN any slight qualitative edge.

You cannot compare the downtime rates from the yanks, the type 45 has already proved a high availability rate, also do you apply different conditions to your virtual Italian navy? How come they can field every hull?

BoJack Horseman

gallag wrote: »

Ythe type 45 has already proved a high availability rate

Well, what is that rate?
6 hulls total.... but how many are currently underway or ready to be so on a given day?

also do you apply different conditions to your virtual Italian navy?

Virtual?
No, its their own currently confirmed contracted hulls under construction or soon to be so.
The italian navy as it currently stands is actually 34 warships, reducing in size, (Just like ol' Blighty) to 28 warships..... but whether its now, or whether its a decade from now, the RN will have fewer ships...
Its not a debating point Gallag, it's one number being bigger than another!

And there is a lot of commonality between vessels (See Type-45/Orrizonte Class), so as I said, aside from the 'QE' being better than the 'Cavour', there is not a huge qualitative gulf between the two Navies either.

How come they can field every hull?

Quote where I said that was so.... thanks

gallag

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, what is that rate?
6 hulls total.... but how many are currently underway or ready to be so on a given day?


Virtual?
No, its their own currently confirmed contracted hulls under construction or soon to be so.
The italian navy as it currently stands is actually 34 warships, reducing in size, (Just like ol' Blighty) to 28 warships..... but whether its now, or whether its a decade from now, the RN will have fewer ships...
Its not a debating point Gallag, it's one number being bigger than another!

And there is a lot of commonality between vessels (See Type-45/Orrizonte Class), so as I said, aside from the 'QE' being better than the 'Cavour', there is not a huge qualitative gulf between the two Navies either.



Quote where I said that was so.... thanks

It just seemed like you were comparing a realistic British carrier group allowing for maintenance/upgrades etc vs the entire Italian navy, also many of the British ships are vastly superior to the Italian ships, if I had to choose between being on HMS Astute or an Italian attack sub I know which I would choose, total numbers vs total numbers is pretty irrelevant, the type 45 is vastly superior to any AAW available to escort an Italian carrier, to be fair you are pretty much the on your own in believing the Italian navy is stronger than the RN, I mean I just Google Italian vs UK navy and can not find one article/report/study/opinion that would agree with you? Though if I am reading you right you recon the RN would slightly edge the Italian navy, so which European navy in your opinion is vastly superior to make the RN "second tier"?

sparky42

Of course there's another issue with the order reduction of the Type 26. Since the start they were trying ot sell it for exports, is this an admittance that the orders aren't going to come? I mean the price per hull (already fairly high) is only going to increase now with the lower number to spread the costs (ie the Type 45's), So for Navies like New Zealand for example what will they go with now? (Given NZ's selection of the SeaCeptor it seemed like they were a customer?

gallag

sparky42 wrote: »

Of course there's another issue with the order reduction of the Type 26. Since the start they were trying ot sell it for exports, is this an admittance that the orders aren't going to come? I mean the price per hull (already fairly high) is only going to increase now with the lower number to spread the costs (ie the Type 45's), So for Navies like New Zealand for example what will they go with now? (Given NZ's selection of the SeaCeptor it seemed like they were a customer?

I can't see there being a single outside order for the type 26, iv no doubt it will be a fantastic ship but it will simply be overpriced.

BoJack Horseman

gallag wrote: »

also many of the British ships are vastly superior to the Italian ships

Like what exactly?

The Type 45 & The Orizzonte class were born of the same common project until the Brits split from the Franco/Italian consortium and went alone.

their AAW capabilities are essentially the same, built around the same PAAMS/48-cell vls carrying Aster missiles.
However the Italian vessels carry greater capability to engage surface & sub-surface targets, (including 3 deck guns vs the T45's 1x 4.5 inch) something completely lacking from the Type-45.

So, the italian vessel just seems a more complete version of what the Type 45 should be.

Also, I'd take a FREMM over a type 23 any day of the week & they will stand very well against the Type-26.

if I had to choose between being on HMS Astute or an Italian attack sub I know which I would choose

Probably, while the Astute is not perfect (noisier & slower than initially hoped) & will be f*cked by the end of the decade when the TLAMs run out. However the cost of an astute being 4 times higher than an Italian type-212 is eye watering & seems unable to keep ivan from sneaking around the mainland.

total numbers vs total numbers is pretty irrelevant

Indeed, and as I said, the RN's qualitative edge is simply not there (in the surface at least, if not sub surface)

the type 45 is vastly superior to any AAW available to escort an Italian carrier

See above, the reality (& not the chest thumping spin) says otherwise.
And quantity has a quality of its own.

to be fair you are pretty much the on your own in believing the Italian navy is stronger than the RN, I mean I just Google Italian vs UK navy and can not find one article/report/study/opinion that would agree with you?

Who would devote time considering the two nations fighting a naval war?
That in itself does not make me wrong.

Though if I am reading you right you recon the RN would slightly edge the Italian navy

Slightly, over all.

so which European navy in your opinion is vastly superior to make the RN "second tier"?

I'd put the French ahead.
Globally?
USA, China, India..... maybe Russia within 10 years.

gallag

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Like what exactly?

The Type 45 & The Orizzonte class were born of the same common project until the Brits split from the Franco/Italian consortium and went alone.

their AAW capabilities are essentially the same, built around the same PAAMS/48-cell vls carrying Aster missiles.
However the Italian vessels carry greater capability to engage surface & sub-surface targets, (including 3 deck guns vs the T45's 1x 4.5 inch) something completely lacking from the Type-45.

So, the italian vessel just seems a more complete version of what the Type 45 should be.

Also, I'd take a FREMM over a type 23 any day of the week & they will stand very well against the Type-26.



Probably, while the Astute is not perfect (noisier & slower than initially hoped) & will be f*cked by the end of the decade when the TLAMs run out. However the cost of an astute being 4 times higher than an Italian type-212 is eye watering & seems unable to keep ivan from sneaking around the mainland.


Indeed, and as I said, the RN's qualitative edge is simply not there (in the surface at least, if not sub surface)


See above, the reality (& not the chest thumping spin) says otherwise.
And quantity has a quality of its own.


Who would devote time considering the two nations fighting a naval war?
That in itself does not make me wrong.


Slightly, over all.


I'd put the French ahead.
Globally?
USA, China, India..... maybe Russia within 10 years.

Ok bud, iv probably agreed with you more often than not but on this we will have to agree to disagree lol.

Overall very happy with the spending and defence review, only 8 type 26 which will be a massive improvement on the 23's but it's about time we went for a cheeper general purpose ship , the 5 new general purpose hulls and the 9 p-8 was unexpected, hopefully we will secure orders for the cheeper friggits. RAF seemed the big winners.

Boreas

gallag wrote: »

Overall very happy with the spending and defence review, only 8 type 26 which will be a massive improvement on the 23's but it's about time we went for a cheeper general purpose ship , the 5 new general purpose hulls and the 9 p-8 was unexpected, hopefully we will secure orders for the cheeper friggits. RAF seemed the big winners.

If you haven't seen it already you might be interested in this, SDSR implications for the RN – The surface escort conundrum

IrishTrajan

The thing that took me most by surprise was them increasing their expeditionary forces from 30,000 to 50,000. That's a 60% increase.

Boreas

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The thing that took me most by surprise was them increasing their expeditionary forces from 30,000 to 50,000. That's a 60% increase.

I'm no expert but 50,000 out of a force of 85,000ish seems extremely high. I don't see how it could be sustained for any length of time.

IrishTrajan

Boreas wrote: »

I'm no expert but 50,000 out of a force of 85,000ish seems extremely high. I don't see how it could be sustained for any length of time.

I'd hazard a guess that they are modelling on the EUBGs, short-term operation capacity as a rapid-reaction force, but I've no idea. It could probably be divided amongst the entire Armed Forces (which is 150,000 active and 70,000 reserves), and would include RAF/RN detachments?

BoJack Horseman

Boreas wrote: »

If you haven't seen it already you might be interested in this, SDSR implications for the RN – The surface escort conundrum

Good link.... An interesting read.

BAE.... What a waste.... And they own everything.. Ships, sub's, the new IFVs

Fingers in pies, exploding costs.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that they are modelling on the EUBGs, short-term operation capacity as a rapid-reaction force, but I've no idea. It could probably be divided amongst the entire Armed Forces (which is 150,000 active and 70,000 reserves), and would include RAF/RN detachments?

I think the British army reformed (like the USA & Russia) to a model of quick deploying independent brigades, more or less removing the cumbersome divisions.

I think I recall reading that this reform proved anemic though because politically it would have required disbanding old regiment names... but the brass & politicians bottled on that, so there are a lot of surplus formations that are actually under strength.

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Good link.... An interesting read.

BAE.... What a waste.... And they own everything.. Ships, sub's, the new IFVs

Fingers in pies, exploding costs.

BAE was created as part of the post-Cold War defence industry consolidation going on everywhere. The US and Europe saw many defence firms merge in the 90's, most notably the creation of EADS (now Airbus) in Europe. There was a certain logic in this but in the case of BAE it created one single dominating entity that owned pretty much the entire British defence industry and able to name its price on any UK contract. Of course British ministers could have just said no and went to any of the oversea's defence firms but then there would have been the deafening roar of abandoning British workers and the rest.

In a way I'm kind of glad Ireland has no indigenous defence sector. It allows us to buy whatever suits us, at the right price.

Silvera

Ren2k7 wrote: »

In a way I'm kind of glad Ireland has no indigenous defence sector. It allows us to buy whatever suits us, at the right price.

True. But what will we buy (i.e what jet aircraft would fulfil our requirements)?

Morpheus

ive said it before.
a funded pilot training agreement with uk for lead in jet training hours
get a transfer of some of their pilots over here to train on PC9s
agree to allow them to share part of our airspace for training so both forces meaning that we can both legally fly their jet trainers and fighter jets over here and we can fly our helos and PC9s in their training areas.
Utimately lease squadron of saab gripens in same deal as czech and slovakia

seanaway

Morpheus wrote: »

ive said it before.
a funded pilot training agreement with uk for lead in jet training hours
get a transfer of some of their pilots over here to train on PC9s
agree to allow them to share part of our airspace for training so both us and them can fly their jet trainers and jets over here and we can fly our helos and PC9s in their training areas
and ultimately lease squadron of saab gripens in same deal as czech and slovakia

Nice idea but I fail to see what would be in it for our neighbours.

Jawgap

seanaway wrote: »

Nice idea but I fail to see what would be in it for our neighbours.

Lots of uncongested airspace to dick around in

seanaway

Jawgap wrote: »

Lots of uncongested airspace to dick around in

That would be about the extent of it ok.

Heraldoffreeent

seanaway wrote: »

Nice idea but I fail to see what would be in it for our neighbours.

For one, it blocks a virtual gap in their defences on the western approaches.
For another, it would mean us investing in proper Radar, which would be capable of plugging into theirs, which would give them an altogether better Radar picture.

seanaway

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

For one, it blocks a virtual gap in their defences on the western approaches.
For another, it would mean us investing in proper Radar, which would be capable of plugging into theirs, which would give them an altogether better Radar picture.

1. If push came to shove they'd use the airspace anyway in defence of their national interest.
2. We should be investing in radar anyway.
3. These steps are moving towards NATO membership

BoJack Horseman

seanaway wrote: »

1. If push came to shove they'd use the airspace anyway in defence of their national interest.

Well, with permission of course.

2. We should be investing in radar anyway.

That's the plan at least (the defence review committed to something unspecified on an unspecified time line..... so here's hoping.

3. These steps are moving towards NATO membership

bilateral defence cooperation does not a NATO membership make.... not by a long way.

gallag

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

For one, it blocks a virtual gap in their defences on the western approaches.
For another, it would mean us investing in proper Radar, which would be capable of plugging into theirs, which would give them an altogether better Radar picture.

I'd say parking a 45 out west would net a better result.

BoJack Horseman

gallag wrote: »

I'd say parking a 45 out west would net a better result.

pricier though & not permanent.

Leonidas BL

I wonder do the Brits have any tornado ADV's with low hours in storage. I know they were retired in 2011.
Long range twin engined interceptor would be perfect

Heraldoffreeent

gallag wrote: »

I'd say parking a 45 out west would net a better result.

Seeing as it took the RN about two days to get one from plymouth to the scottish coast earlier in the year to investigate an intruding Russki cruiser and oiler, I doubt they have the ability, or indeed, the wherewithal to park one 200nm off the Galway coast indefinitely.

seanaway

"Well, with permission of course."

They didn't ask Iceland permission in WW2. They simply invaded to protect themselves.

"That's the plan at least (the defence review committed to something unspecified on an unspecified time line..... so here's hoping."

Don't hold your breath.

"bilateral defence cooperation does not a NATO membership make.... not by a long way."

True but of some were to see it that way and not like it...

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

I'd say parking a 45 out west would net a better result.

The RN doesn't really have one to spare.

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I wonder do the Brits have any tornado ADV's with low hours in storage. I know they were retired in 2011.
Long range twin engined interceptor would be perfect

I'd say they would most likely be scavenged for the remain Tornado fleet. Also with examples of the USN going single engine, I'm not sure that major forces still consider the need for the double engines.

Leonidas BL

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say they would most likely be scavenged for the remain Tornado fleet. Also with examples of the USN going single engine, I'm not sure that major forces still consider the need for the double engines.

I agree there's probably no need for twin engine, but they would be cheap, fast and long range.

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

BAE was created as part of the post-Cold War defence industry consolidation going on everywhere. The US and Europe saw many defence firms merge in the 90's, most notably the creation of EADS (now Airbus) in Europe. There was a certain logic in this but in the case of BAE it created one single dominating entity that owned pretty much the entire British defence industry and able to name its price on any UK contract. Of course British ministers could have just said no and went to any of the oversea's defence firms but then there would have been the deafening roar of abandoning British workers and the rest.

In a way I'm kind of glad Ireland has no indigenous defence sector. It allows us to buy whatever suits us, at the right price.

BAE will tell you that the cost overruns and the constant deadline extensions is due to the British Government changing their mind about what they want, constantly renegotiating the deals and then going back on what they want to previous agreements...

The British are great at wielding financial power, but this is why they didn't maintain a large military during peace-times... They were bloody awful at it.

IrishTrajan

seanaway wrote: »

1. If push came to shove they'd use the airspace anyway in defence of their national interest.

Of course they would, but they would have absolutely no legal basis to do so, and it makes their life a lot easier to have legal standing for any action they take.

seanaway wrote: »

2. We should be investing in radar anyway.

We are, I believe.

seanaway wrote: »

3. These steps are moving towards NATO membership

False conclusion. We were willing to sign an alliance with the U.S. back in the day, but we weren't willing to join NATO (since the Brits were in it).

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I agree there's probably no need for twin engine, but they would be cheap, fast and long range.

I'd say it's more false economy though, they might still have lifespan left in the airframes but remember the Tornado fleet is going out of service before 2020 in the RAF I think, so the supply lines will be winding down already, so sustaining them would be a headache

coolhandspan

Ok whats the story can we just get 12 jf 17s

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-06-17/the-china-pakistan-fighter-jet-built-on-the-cheap

Base 6 in shannon airport and 6 in Baldonnel [longer runway req imho]

We have the money just cant offer tax breaks to pleb public as we will overheat economy lol/ maybe these yolks are answer.:eek::eek::pac:

BoJack Horseman

coolhandspan wrote: »

Ok whats the story can we just get 12 jf 17s

the JF-17 seems very poor.
An apparently crude update of a 1950s vintage mig-21.

Only Pakistan uses it....
nuff said.

Boreas

coolhandspan wrote: »

Ok whats the story can we just get 12 jf 17s

Seems like it is in the same class as the India Tejas or the Korean FA-50 both of which would presumably be politically more acceptable choices, if Ireland was in the market for this kind of aircraft, which it isn't.

If an Irish government ever decided that fast jets were a requirement I think they'd buy a European design. IMO expanding the NS should be the priority.

JPNelsforearm

Why dont we buy stuff off Russia? cheap and reliable

IrishTrajan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why dont we buy stuff off Russia? cheap and reliable

Because Russia's equipment is largely inferior, the Russian industry is barely up to scratch keeping their own equipment ticking over, and when you're dealing with highly sophisticated equipment, you don't want cheap.

The Russians are great at making missiles, not so much at anything else. That's why their only consumers are third-world nations.

JPNelsforearm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Because Russia's equipment is largely inferior, the Russian industry is barely up to scratch keeping their own equipment ticking over, and when you're dealing with highly sophisticated equipment, you don't want cheap.

The Russians are great at making missiles, not so much at anything else. That's why their only consumers are third-world nations.

Realistically all of our military and patrol needs only require Russian level of technology. Cheap is good, wheeling out a sukhoi to guard our fisheries, for training or to provide aerial support in our peacekeeping is about the height of what we need, latest tech isnt necessary. Why overpay? Cheap, easy to maintain and rugged, thats the criteria

IrishTrajan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Realistically all of our military and patrol needs only require Russian level of technology. Cheap is good, wheeling out a sukhoi to guard our fisheries, for training or to provide aerial support in our peacekeeping is about the height of what we need, latest tech isnt necessary. Why overpay? Cheap, easy to maintain and rugged, thats the criteria

The Sukhoi are more expensive than the JAS 39, and Russian industry is notorious for poor maintenance. The Swedes are cheaper, more reliable (in that they are designed to land on make-shift runways and such), and not as politically controversial (you saw the storm that kicked up when Turkey was contemplating buying Chinese equipment) considering we already buy a significant amount of equipment from the Swedes.

JPNelsforearm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Sukhoi are more expensive than the JAS 39, and Russian industry is notorious for poor maintenance. The Swedes are cheaper, more reliable (in that they are designed to land on make-shift runways and such), and not as politically controversial (you saw the storm that kicked up when Turkey was contemplating buying Chinese equipment) considering we already buy a significant amount of equipment from the Swedes.

Its 40/60 mill a plane, there is no need for us to invest that sort of money, An Su25(or similar pricepoint), upgrade it, use it as ground support, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, all for around 11 million quid. buy a few jet trainers like the aermachhi to complement it.

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its 40/60 mill a plane, there is no need for us to invest that sort of money, An Su25(or similar pricepoint), upgrade it, use it as ground support, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, all for around 11 million quid. buy a few jet trainers like the aermachhi to complement it.

Of all of Russia's aircraft inventory, there would be no worse choice than their equivalent of the A-10..

in a 9-11-esque hijacking situation the 'frogfoot' hasn't got the speed to intercept & keep up with a commercial airliner.... and cannot fly as high as a commercial airliner!

In terms of a more likely incursion, a Russian long-range bomber, deploying one of their own, is again futile... the Frogfoot has not got the range, altitude or speed & being 'one of their own' would be jammed in an instant anyway.

And, as mentioned.... there is a definite reliability aspect to it, aswell as being tied into the Russian family of weapons, sensors & communications & as such decreasing compatibility or interoperability with European fleets.

JPNelsforearm

Im thinking in terms of what we would get use out of, it would be hugely expensive to purchase and get a load of fighters up and running and they would be f-all use apart from escorting Russian bombers and an utterly unlikely 9/11 scenario.

Aerial support for the Gardai and Navy,fisheries patrol, surveillance, reconnaissance and CAS for the Army is pretty much bread and butter that we need a plane for. A fighter jet is pretty much useless for that. Say we deploy to Mali, what use is fast air against Islamists in pick up trucks? Look how the US fared in the Afghan, the A-10 is the undisputed king in conflicts like that.

SpannerMonkey

ireland would never buy russian tech, like every other nation in the western world its cant be seen to be done its just not cricket old chap

Negative_G

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its 40/60 mill a plane, there is no need for us to invest that sort of money, An Su25(or similar pricepoint), upgrade it, use it as ground support, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, all for around 11 million quid. buy a few jet trainers like the aermachhi to complement it.

Are you seriously suggesting purchasing a sub sonic, single seat, twin engine jet and using it for maritime patrol?

Leonidas BL

Negative_G wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting purchasing a sub sonic, single seat, twin engine jet and using it for maritime patrol?

Shows all he knows. Even the scorpion would be a better choice than that.

JPNelsforearm

Negative_G wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting purchasing a sub sonic, single seat, twin engine jet and using it for maritime patrol?

Eh, what do you think we are patrolling for? How fast does a trawler/boat move?

Ireland has use for a plane that does everything for the least amount of money, talk of fighters is farcical. I only threw out the SU-25 as a price/role comparison as it were to the Gripen.

Talk of jets is farcical, we have no need, how do jets help if say a Mowag gets pinned down in Mali? You need a CAS plane.

Long Gone

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why dont we buy stuff off Russia? cheap and reliable

Cheap and nasty more like..........

Negative_G

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Eh, what do you think we are patrolling for? How fast does a trawler/boat move?

Ireland has use for a plane that does everything for the least amount of money, talk of fighters is farcical. I only threw out the SU-25 as a price/role comparison as it were to the Gripen.

Talk of jets is farcical, we have no need, how do jets help if say a Mowag gets pinned down in Mali? You need a CAS plane.

Do you understand or have any concept in what is involved in conducting maritime patrols?

On your first point. A vessel moves slowly. Therefore you require an aircraft that offers a low stall speed with good low speed handling, the ability to carry extensive specific mission equipment and long endurance as well as the ability to carry pilots, radar operators and photographers. As a comparison the current Casa's carry a minimum crew of 6. There is so much wrong with your suggestion, if you don't see how ridiculous it is, nothing I say will change it.

You seem to be concerned with what if's. The army will not be deploying to Mali in significant numbers. The German's have contributed a large number to relieve the French. There will be no large scale deployment to Mali.

Let's try and keep it on Air & Naval Defence, like the thread title suggests.

This obsession with buying the cheapest, and trying to make it a "Do all, utility aircraft" is a waste of time. You either do it right or don't do it at all. To date, there is plenty of examples of both.

JPNelsforearm

Negative_G wrote: »

Do you understand or have any concept in what is involved in conducting maritime patrols?

On your first point. A vessel moves slowly. Therefore you require an aircraft that offers a low stall speed with good low speed handling, the ability to carry extensive specific mission equipment and long endurance as well as the ability to carry pilots, radar operators and photographers. As a comparison the current Casa's carry a minimum crew of 6. There is so much wrong with your suggestion, if you don't see how ridiculous it is, nothing I say will change it.

You seem to be concerned with what if's. The army will not be deploying to Mali in significant numbers. The German's have contributed a large number to relieve the French. There will be no large scale deployment to Mali.

Let's try and keep it on Air & Naval Defence, like the thread title suggests.

This obsession with buying the cheapest, and trying to make it a "Do all, utility aircraft" is a waste of time. You either do it right or don't do it at all. To date, there is plenty of examples of both.

As you mention we have the CASA, Im merely suggesting potential uses, using it as a complement, say on the off chance they have a manpad on drug/weapons smuggling boat, whatever, then you have a jet powered CAS aircraft that can loiter and pop a few cannon rounds at it. Im just trying to increase scope and thus value.

Air and naval defence has to incorporate a broader scope, we dont have heaps of cash nor do we have a single overarching need that can be filled with one aircraft. The likes of the Textron, Aermachhi etc... The Sukhoi, I just threw it out there to use as a comparison with the Gripen. the Irish army and Air force would get far more utility out of a CAS aricraft then a jet fighter.

Jet fighters have one use, cost a load of money, cant carry much payload, are useless at CAS. We arent talking about multirole Phantom fighter bombers here.

Cost, utility, ruggedness all have to be number one. You could buy a jet trainer/light attack craft and a dedicated CAS jet for the guts of twenty million quid that would fill in a multitude roles. Or for less money just buy two/three variants of a light attack/CAS jet budgeted at 10/15 mill. even further reducing your spend and parts/repair costs and filling as much holes in the inventory as possible.
Its like managing a team, you want to fit in as many different skill sets as possible, for the least amount of money